Old film lenses versus new digital lenses? (Page 4): IMHO you are absolutely right about a certain " look " to older film lenses... Maybe it is the imperfections etc... There was just...

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Mwilliamsphotography wrote:

Many older film era lenses had a specific "ch... (show quote)

IMHO you are absolutely right about a certain " look " to older film lenses... Maybe it is the imperfections etc... There was just that something about the look. I don't even like the look of hi Rez med. format color... too much of a plastic, digital look; just my opinion, don't crucify me !

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Focus throw on MF Nikkors is to be loved... (from way too much experience)
The difference between 280 degrees on vintage Nikkors verses less than 90 degrees on even the "best" and most pricey plastic Nikkors is HUGE!

Working in LiveView is a dream with 280 degrees of focus throw...

Focus throw is measured in degrees and represents the amount of rotation needed to turn a lens' focus ring from its MFD (minimum focus distance) to infinity. A manual focus lens tends to have a much larger focus than an autofocus lens because this allows a greater degree of accuracy.

If you're shooting product for $$ then time is money... In this scenario a short focus throw induces the need for higher dosage of Acetaminophen to complete a large job... Experience is a very brutal teacher...

When I was racing bicycles I remember the saying... Steel is Real... at the time titanium bicycle frames were totally in vogue... and the ride they gave left you with sore joints (ridged titanium frames such as the LiteSpeed Ultimate (at over $2000)) simply weren't fun to ride... I feel the same about current high end feather weight plastic Nikkors which lack stabilizing inertia i.e. a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state, unless that state is changed by an external force (a.k.a. mirror slap).

Albeit I will confess that I'm blown away with the new AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR-II DX Nikkor (330 grams) it totally rocks on my Nikon D300s... Seeing is believing... Oh well I would have never guessed that a $100 (used LN Nikkor) would compete favorably at f8 to f11 with the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VRII Nikkor... Even on a D810!

At the end of the day, it's the client involvement in the mix that tempers the perception as to what is "good" or "best". Every assignment is difference and the challenge is fielding the most appropriate tool(s) for the job.

Hope this is food for thought...
Thanks all for sharing...

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Apophasis wrote:

I still shoot 95% film. In 35mm, I shoot Nikon, Canon, and Leica. Some of the old best lenses from these manufacturers still seem great to me, but I do not know the other side. Those of you that have used the best of the manual lenses mounted on digital cameras, how do they compare? I would be especially interested reports on the cheaper old lens that are surprisingly great (IMHO): Nikon E AIS 50mm 1.8, Nikon 135mm 3.5 AIS etc.

Thanks.

I'm dumb lucky, my father was a doctor at the close of WW II and he was a Leica guy. At the time the Leica factory was non functional and he got to know the people at the factory quite well, he also courted several of the main people at Leica, so they guided his purchases.

He gifted me his old gear and I am delighted with that gift. I have the WW II German State and Military Sumalux 8.5, f 1.6 Lens. This is the lens that was not allowed to be sold to the world, the lenses you can find on the net are the ones produced after the war. This lens is what the Asian makers now use as their modeling for the fast 85 mm f1.5 lenses. As to sharp, there is little comparison.

The problem with all this "How good are these lenses, or gear' can be shown by a wonderful idiotic article published in the past century by Modern Photography. It was an article comparing the quality of enlarging lenses made by different makers. The idiot experts tested lens on a standard Omega D-2 enlarger. The Leica Focotars did not preform well at all, they were evaluated as just above fair. Where was the flaw? these idiots tested Leica enlarging lenses on an Omega enlarger. Omega did not or never made lenses. But Leica made their lenses to go on a Leica enlarger, which had a condenser do well made and finished that you could do pint source enlarging with the standard directly off the production line enlarger. To may this is an odd thing but to do point source enlarging you not only have to have a condenser that is finished to the dame quality as a fine lens, it has to have adjustments built into the enlarger to make adjustments for the bare bilb that is used with that enlarger.

In simple layman's terms, It is a fools test to compare the ability to produce a clear sharp print with a Leica enlarging lens on a junky Omega enlarger. Test the 'package' the makers lens on their enlarger that is made for that optic.

So, now to the reality that you will hate. Do other makers of optics have great lenses and are they as good as a Leica lens. Yes, of course there tae great Asian makers of lenses. I asked this vary question at the Leica factory and that was the answer that I got.

Here is a reality that is at the heart of the problem and you have herd this many times before I will venture to guess. It is NOT the lens, it is the entire package that makes the image. Back in the early 1930's Leica looked at the problem of sharpness. They discovered a rather interesting fact about sharpness. That was that most if not almost all of the loss of sharpness is due to the first curtain in a focal plane shutter coming to a sudden stop, this creating shake in the camera package (camera body and lens).

In 1932 Leica changed their camera shutters for ever, the first curtain in the camera body is not 'stopped' it's potential is dissipated through a roller baring and so has little or no impact on vibration. Thus the saying that you can hand hold a Leica at a much slower speed for a sharp image. This is the source of both the myth' and a great truth. If you want to test an optic for sharpness then put it on an optical bench, but when you use that optic to get sharp images you need to take the pictures on that optical bench. E. Leitz knows this is absurd and so they have a camera that reduces camera vibration and so can produce sharper images. What I was told was to get that great Nikon lens and shoot with it, BUT it needs to be on a Leica camera body. Wait, so who makes these types of shutters? Leica, the rest could care less about how sharp your photograph is, they are a company selling cameras and optics.

So, a solution on the practical world, shoot all ensures on a Leica camera body that uses a focal plane shutter or you can use a camera stabilizer (not that trick crap that digital makers serve you) that mounts on the base of your camera to reduces camera vibrations.

That is the 'strait dope'.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Mwilliamsphotography wrote:

Many older film era lenses had a specific "ch... (show quote)

Looks beautifully organic ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

rehess wrote:

The new lenses are ‘superior’ in a clinical sense, but the old class has real “character”, which some of us appreciate.

JDefebaugh wrote:

Agree 110%; that was my point.

Part of the issue is also a matter of ‘taste’. For example, people today seem to expect accuracy to a manner that was not true in the past.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Said by any True Photographer: lower your expectations to match your results.

User ID

Timmers wrote:

I'm dumb lucky, my father was a doctor at the close of WW II and he was a Leica guy. At the time the Leica factory was non functional and he got to know the people at the factory quite well, he also courted several of the main people at Leica, so they guided his purchases.

He gifted me his old gear and I am delighted with that gift. I have the WW II German State and Military Sumalux 8.5, f 1.6 Lens. This is the lens that was not allowed to be sold to the world, the lenses you can find on the net are the ones produced after the war. This lens is what the Asian makers now use as their modeling for the fast 85 mm f1.5 lenses. As to sharp, there is little comparison.

The problem with all this "How good are these lenses, or gear' can be shown by a wonderful idiotic article published in the past century by Modern Photography. It was an article comparing the quality of enlarging lenses made by different makers. The idiot experts tested lens on a standard Omega D-2 enlarger. The Leica Focotars did not preform well at all, they were evaluated as just above fair. Where was the flaw? these idiots tested Leica enlarging lenses on an Omega enlarger. Omega did not or never made lenses. But Leica made their lenses to go on a Leica enlarger, which had a condenser do well made and finished that you could do pint source enlarging with the standard directly off the production line enlarger. To may this is an odd thing but to do point source enlarging you not only have to have a condenser that is finished to the dame quality as a fine lens, it has to have adjustments built into the enlarger to make adjustments for the bare bilb that is used with that enlarger.

In simple layman's terms, It is a fools test to compare the ability to produce a clear sharp print with a Leica enlarging lens on a junky Omega enlarger. Test the 'package' the makers lens on their enlarger that is made for that optic.

So, now to the reality that you will hate. Do other makers of optics have great lenses and are they as good as a Leica lens. Yes, of course there tae great Asian makers of lenses. I asked this vary question at the Leica factory and that was the answer that I got.

Here is a reality that is at the heart of the problem and you have herd this many times before I will venture to guess. It is NOT the lens, it is the entire package that makes the image. Back in the early 1930's Leica looked at the problem of sharpness. They discovered a rather interesting fact about sharpness. That was that most if not almost all of the loss of sharpness is due to the first curtain in a focal plane shutter coming to a sudden stop, this creating shake in the camera package (camera body and lens).

In 1932 Leica changed their camera shutters for ever, the first curtain in the camera body is not 'stopped' it's potential is dissipated through a roller baring and so has little or no impact on vibration. Thus the saying that you can hand hold a Leica at a much slower speed for a sharp image. This is the source of both the myth' and a great truth. If you want to test an optic for sharpness then put it on an optical bench, but when you use that optic to get sharp images you need to take the pictures on that optical bench. E. Leitz knows this is absurd and so they have a camera that reduces camera vibration and so can produce sharper images. What I was told was to get that great Nikon lens and shoot with it, BUT it needs to be on a Leica camera body. Wait, so who makes these types of shutters? Leica, the rest could care less about how sharp your photograph is, they are a company selling cameras and optics.

So, a solution on the practical world, shoot all ensures on a Leica camera body that uses a focal plane shutter or you can use a camera stabilizer (not that trick crap that digital makers serve you) that mounts on the base of your camera to reduces camera vibrations.

That is the 'strait dope'.

I'm dumb lucky, my father was a doctor at the clos... (show quote)

Such a loooooooong diatribe of much ado about nothing. Modern Photography published a BS article ? Not news. They did that every month. You need a Leica shutter to avoid shutter shock ? Partially true, for a brief spell, long ago. Leica doesnt make that shutter anymore. Nearly all modern cameras can record images using NO moving parts.

User ID

rehess wrote:

As usual, it depends on how you define ‘better’ - do you mean ‘more accurate’ {‘more clinical’} or ‘gives better photos’ in a clearly definable sense?

Personally, I use old Takumars on my film camera some times. Pentaxians use the term “fairy dust”, which admittedly is not a “clearly definable” term.

These recent few pages have been *all about* fairy dust. IOW, youre in agreeable company !